(A) The exercise of the right to judicial protection of subjective substantive rights is backed by limitation and absolute periods (calendar time periods) established by the law.
The limitation period is the period of inactivity of the holder of a subjective right, the expiry of which liquidates his/her ability to seek legal protection of that right. The expiry of a limitation period does not extinguish the substantive right itself but the associated right of action and right of enforcement, turning the right into a natural right (substantive right not subject to judicial protection). The limitation does not apply automatically but only following an objection by the debtor before the competent court or a bailiff.
The rules of duration, cessation and suspension of limitation periods are laid down in the Obligations and Contracts Act (ZZD). A general five-year limitation period is established for all claims without special time limits. (Article 110 ZZD)
A three-year limitation period is established for three groups of claims (Article 111 ZZD):
A three-year limitation period is also established for the right to request statutory invalidation of contracts concluded in error, or as a result of fraud or threat, as well as contracts concluded by incapacitated persons or their representatives without meeting the relevant requirements.
A one-year limitation period is established for the right to request statutory invalidation of a contract concluded because of exceptional necessity or obviously unfavourable conditions (Article 33 ZZD)
A six-month limitation period is provided for claims concerning deficiency in the sale of chattels, or deficient workmanship in a manufacturing contract, except for construction works where the claim is liquidated within the general five-year term (Article 265 ZZD).
A two-year limitation period is established in enforcement proceedings. Where the creditor in an instituted enforcement case fails to seek the performance of enforcement actions for two years, the enforcement proceedings will be terminated ex lege on the basis of point 8 of Article 433(1) GPK, and the new limitation period starts to run from the performance of the most recent valid enforcement action
The limitation period starts to run from the time when the right of action is formed and can be exercised, which depends on the nature of the substantive right affected. This may be the time when the contractual obligation has become payable, or the time of committing the wrongful act, or the time of identifying the doer in tort/delict, or the time of handing over the item in a claim for defects, etc.
The limitation period may not be shortened or prolonged by consent of the parties.
The limitation period may, however, be suspended and interrupted.
The limitation period ceases to run in the cases set out exhaustively in Article 115 ZZD:
In these cases, the party is temporarily and legally deprived of the ability to exercise the right of action. The limitation period which has run until the suspension remains in effect and continues to run after the lapse of the circumstance that caused the suspension.
The limitation period is suspended in the following cases:
In these cases, the period which has run from the time of origin of the right of action till suspension of the limitation loses its legal relevance and a new limitation period begins to run. Where the suspension is performed by a claim or an objection, the law also establishes another important consequence: the new limitation period which starts after the suspension is always five years.
Absolute (preclusion) time periods are those upon the expiry of which the substantive rights themselves lapse. These time limits begin to run from the time of origin of the subjective right, and not from the time of origin of the right of action.
Absolute periods may not be ceased or suspended like limitation periods.
They are applied by the court or by a bailiff of its or his/her own motion, which means that their protection does not require an objection made by the debtor. The expiry of an absolute period renders an action brought inadmissible, whereas the expiry of a limitation period (provided an objection has been made) renders the action unjustified.
Such preclusion time periods include: the three-month period in which the pledgee or mortgagee may object if payment of insurance indemnity is made to the owner of the item, and not to him/her; the two-month period in which a co-owner may bring an action for the purchase of a co-owned item if the other co-owner has sold his/her share to a third party; the one-year period for bringing an action to cancel a donation, etc.
B) Time limits for the performance of certain procedural actions by the parties and the court in claims proceedings, as well as in enforcement proceedings, are established by the Civil Procedure Code (GPK). Time limits for the performance of procedural actions in insolvency proceedings are established by the Commerce Act (Targovski zakon) (TZ) and, respectively, by the Bank Insolvency Act (Zakon za bankovata nesastoyatelnost) (ZBN) in respect of bank insolvency and in other special laws.
In respect of the parties, omission of the deadline results in liquidation of the right to carry out the relevant procedural action. Failure by the court to meet a set deadline for proceeding does not constitute an impediment to carrying out the procedural action later, since it is always due. The time limits established in respect of the court are merely indicative.
The time periods to carry out procedural actions by the parties are those which are established by the law, and those established by the court.
The time periods established by the law (legal time periods) include:
The time limits determined by the court include:
The time limits are also divided into two types depending on whether they can be extended by the court, or this option is excluded. All time limits set by the court are subject to extension. The time limits for appeal and for the submission of a request for cancellation of an enforceable judgment are not subject to extension: Article 63(3) GPK.
Public holidays include:
1 January – New Year’s Day;
3 March – Liberation Day – National holiday;
1 May – Labour Day;
6 May – St. George’s Day, Day of Courage and the Bulgarian Army;
24 May – Day of Bulgarian Education and Culture and Slavonic Literature;
6 September – Unification Day;
22 September – Independence Day;
1 November – Day of National Awakeners: non-working day for all educational institutions and working day for all other legal entities;
24 December – Christmas Eve, 25 and 26 December – Christmas;
Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday – two days (Sunday and Monday), which are set for celebration in the respective year.
The Ministerial Council may also declare, on one occasion only, other days for public holidays, days for the celebration of certain professions, as well as shift non-working days during the year.
The general rules on time limits for performance of procedural actions by the parties and the court in claims proceedings, as well as in enforcement proceedings, are established by the Civil Procedure Code (GPK). A number of special laws also establish absolute periods for the exercise of procedural rights, e.g. Article 74 of the TZ, Article 19 and Article 25 of the Commercial Register and the Register of Non-Profit Legal Persons Act (Zakon za targovskiya registar i registara na yuridicheskite litsa s nestopanska tsel) (ZTRRYLNT), etc. General information on the general rules set out in Chapter Seven of the Civil Procedure Code ‘Time limits and recovery of time limits’ is presented in the answers to Questions 4, 5 and 6.
The general rules on limitation periods are set out in Article 110 and the following of the Obligations and Contracts Act. See Item 1.
The general rules on the time periods for fulfilment of obligations arising from obligation relations are set out in Articles 69–72 of the Obligations and Contracts Act.
In the presence of preconditions defined in the procedural law (Article 61, Article 229, Article 432 GPK), the established procedural time limits cease to run, in which case the cessation starts from the event that occasioned the stay of the proceedings. Proceedings are stayed when an impediment to their continued progress has emerged and until it is removed the performance of procedural actions is inadmissible with the exception of securing the action. After the impediment is removed (e.g. a party dies, guardianship has to be instituted, underlying proceedings exist, etc.), the proceedings are subject to resumption, whereupon all actions taken before the stay retain their validity.
Special laws establish other time limits that are shorter than the standard limitation period.
The starting point from which the time limit to take a certain procedural action begins to run is usually the date on which the party is informed that he/she should perform that action, or notified accordingly of a pronounced act of the court against which a complaint may be lodged.
There are also time limits that start to run from the moment of initiation of the claims proceedings, as the law establishes only the final time for their performance.
The time limit runs from the moment of notification to the party. The time at which the notice to the party is deemed to have been properly served is determined differently, depending on the manner of notification. Chapter VI ‘Notices and summons’ of the Civil Procedure Code sets out the rules on the manner of serving notices and summons to the parties, as well as on the time at which notices are deemed to have been properly served.
Where the notice is served personally to the addressee or his/her representative, or to another person, respectively, who lives or works at the address, the summons must state the date on which the notice was received by the person, whether served by a court agent or a postal worker. From that date the time limits for the relevant procedural action start to run.
Notices may also be served to an email specified by the party. They are deemed to have been served with their entry into the specified information system.
In the presence of legal preconditions (for example, when the party has changed the address that it has specified for the case without notifying the court), the court may order the service to be done by attaching the notice under the case, then the time limit begins to run from the date of the attachment. This is substituted service, which is resorted to when an imposed procedural obligation is not complied with.
Where a defendant cannot be found at his/her permanent address and no person is found to receive the notice, the server must affix a notification to the door, or to the mailbox, stating that the papers have been left in the court office and may be received within two weeks from the date of the notification. In this case, if the defendant does not appear to receive them, the notice and related papers are deemed to have been served with the expiry of the time limit for their receipt.
Substituted service in this situation results from the natural person’s non-compliance with his or her administrative obligation to declare a permanent and current address at which he or she is supposed to be found.
Notices are served on traders and legal persons which are entered in a relevant register at the last address declared in the register. If an office does not exist at that address and corporate signage is not found, i.e. there is reason to believe that the person has left its address, all communications are placed in the case file and are deemed to have been duly served: Article 50(2) GPK.
If the trader is at the address entered in the register but the server does not obtain access to the office or does not find a person willing to accept the notice, the server affixes a notification and, unless the papers are received within two weeks of that affixation, they are deemed to have been served (service is substituted).
The time limit is calculated in years, weeks and days. A time limit counted in days is calculated from the day following the day on which the period begins to run and expires at the end of the last day. For example, if the party is instructed to remedy the irregularities of an action within seven days, and a notice is served on 1 June, it is the date on which the time limit begins to run, but the count begins on the next calendar day, 2 June, and the period will expire on 8 June.
Time limits are calculated in calendar days. If, however, the time limit expires on a non-working day (weekend or holiday), it is deemed to expire on the first working day after the non-working day.
A time limit which is counted in weeks expires on the respective day of the last week. For example, if the party is given instructions to remedy the irregularities of the statement of claim within one week, and a related notice is served on Friday, the time limit will expire on Friday of the following week.
A time limit which is counted in months expires on the respective date of the last month, and if the last month has no such date, the period will expire on the last day of the month.
A time limit which is counted in years expires on the respective date of the last year, and if the last year has no such date, the period will expire on its last day.
See the answer to Question 8.
When the last day of the period is non-attendant, the time limit always expires on the first subsequent attendant day.
Only the time limits for appealing against judgements and orders, and for submitting requests for cancellation of an enforced judgement may not be extended by the court, as well as the time limit for filing an objection against a payment order.
All other legal and court-appointed time limits may be extended by the court at the request of the concerned party, submitted prior to the expiry of the time limit if there are good reasons (Article 63 GPK). The newly established time limit may not be shorter than the initial one. The extended time limit runs from the expiry of the initial one. The ruling whereby the time limit is extended (and the ruling whereby such an extension is refused) is not communicated to the party which, therefore, should actively follow the court’s activity.
The Civil Procedure Code sets out the general rules for appealing against judgements and orders in all civil and commercial matters by providing for:
Exclusions to these general rules are exhaustively established by the law and are based on the specific features of the relevant proceedings. Such exclusions are provided for:
There is no provision for the court to shorten the time limits established by it or by the law, but only to extend the time limits at the request of the parties. Only the time limits for appealing against judgements and orders, and for submitting requests for cancellation of an enforced judgement may not be extended by the court, as well as the time limit for filing an objection against a payment order.
However, there is no obstacle for the court to change, on its own motion, or at the request of one of the parties, the date of the hearing by scheduling it for an earlier or a later date, if required by important circumstances. In such cases, however, the court should notify the parties of the new date, and the notice should be served within one week prior to the date of the hearing at the latest.
The procedural rules of the Civil Procedure Code, including those related to the extension of the time limit, apply to all participants in the proceedings, regardless of their place of residence.
The common principle is that procedural actions performed after the expiry of the time limits are not considered by the court. In addition to this rule, the GPK expressly provides that if the deficiencies of the statement of claim are not remedied in time, it is returned; if an appeal, a request for cancellation or an objection to an enforcement order is submitted after the expiry of the time limit, they are returned as overdue; if the party fails to submit in due time the evidence available to them, it will not be accepted in the case, unless the omission is due to special unforeseen circumstances. Non-compliance with procedural time limits precludes the exercise of the rights for which these time limits are envisaged.
A party which has not observed the time limit established by the law or by the court may request its reinstation if it proves that the non-observance was due to special unforeseen circumstances which it was not able to overcome. No reinstation is allowed if it was possible to grant an extension of the time limit in order to carry out the procedural action.
A request for reinstation of the time limit must be submitted within one week of the notice of non-observance, indicating all the circumstances justifying it and any evidence of the merits of the request. The request must be submitted to the court before which the relevant procedural action should have been taken. Together with the request for reinstation of the time limit, the papers for which a recovery of the time limit is requested are also submitted, and if the time limit is for payment of expenses, the court sets a new time limit for their submission.
The request is mandatorily examined in open court. If the request is granted, the forfeited rights are restored.
The national language version of this page is maintained by the respective EJN contact point. The translations have been done by the European Commission service. Possible changes introduced in the original by the competent national authority may not be yet reflected in the translations. Neither the EJN nor the European Commission accept responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to any information or data contained or referred to in this document. Please refer to the legal notice to see copyright rules for the Member State responsible for this page.
Member States in charge of the management of national content pages are in the process of updating some of the content on this website in the light of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. If the site contains content that does not yet reflect the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, it is unintentional and will be addressed.